there is this passage from the Maha-nidana Sutta, (as translated by Ven. Thanissaro):

"'From name-&-form as a requisite condition comes contact. Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes contact. If the qualities, traits, themes, & indicators by which there is a description of name-group (mental activity) were all absent, would designation-contact with regard to the form-group (the physical properties) be discerned?"

"No, lord."

"If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of form-group were all absent, would resistance-contact with regard to the name-group be discerned?"

"No, lord."

"If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group and form-group were all absent, would designation-contact or resistance-contact be discerned?"

"No, lord."

"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for contact, i.e., name-and-form.

I don't mind having to reread the Maha-nidana Sutta from time to time, because in this way, the meaning of the Discourse as a whole gradually becomes clearer to me. But this passage still leaves me stumped, partly because I don't know what many of the terms are actually referring to, for example "qualities, traits, themes, & indicators", and "permutations, signs, themes, and indicators".

As a whole I find the Great Causes Discourse very inspiring and illuminating, so if someone could help me to understand this one passage, I would much appreciate it. I can normally get a basic comprehension of things I read, but this is an exception...please help

Here's Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of that passage. Neither translation is easy to follow...

Contact

“It was said: ‘With mentality-materiality as condition there is contact.’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the mental body were all absent, would designation-contact be discerned in the material body?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the material body were all absent, would impingement-contact be discerned in the mental body?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the mental body and the material body were all absent, would either designation-contact or impingement-contact be discerned?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of mentality-materiality were all absent, would contact be discerned?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“Therefore, Ānanda, this is the cause, source, origin, and condition for contact, namely, mentality-materiality.

‘“Mind-and-body conditions contact.” By whatever properties features, signs, or indications the mind-factor[336] is conceived of, would there, in the absence of such properties…pertaining to the mind-factor, be manifest any grasping at the idea of the body-factor?[337]’ ‘No, Lord.’

‘Or in the absence of any such properties pertaining to the body-factor, would there be any grasping at sensory reaction on the part of the mind-factor?’ ‘No, Lord.’

‘By whatever properties the mind-factor and the body-factor are designated – in their absence is there manifested any grasping at the idea, or at sensory reaction?’ ‘No, Lord.’

‘By whatever properties, features, signs or indications the mind-factor is conceived of, in the absence of these is there any contact to be found?’ ‘No, Lord.’

‘Then, Ānanda, just this, namely mind-and-body, is the root, the cause, the origin, the condition for all contact.’

[336]Nāma-kāya: the mental component of the pair nāma-rūpa ‘name-and-form’ or ‘mind-and-body’. See next note.[337]Rūpa-kāya: the physical component of the pair nāma-rūpa. Both rāpa and kāya can on occasion be translated ‘body’, but there is a difference. Rūpa is body as material, especially visible, form, while kāya is body as aggregate, as in ‘a body of material, a body of men’.

My current understanding is that the sutta is basically saying:

By whatever properties we can attribute to the mind/mental factors, without those properties, there can’t be any idea of a “physical body”, as such.

Without the properties of the body-factor, viz. the physical basis for the senses, the mind couldn’t grasp at any sense reaction (because sense reaction wouldn’t be possible without the physical body's material organs).

If there was no nāma-rūpa, there couldn’t be grasping at ideas or sensory reactions because their basis, viz. their causes and conditions, are not present.

Without feelings, perceptions, and formations there is no contact.

Nāma-rūpa conditions all contact.

[NB that the six-sense bases aren’t included between name-and-form and contact as it often is. But it is not rare in the suttas for one or more of the links of dependent origination to be absent.]

Mkoll wrote:My current understanding is that the sutta is basically saying:

Without feelings, perceptions, and formations there is no contact.Nāma-rūpa conditions all contact.

I'm wondering how this passage relates to the standard description for "contact", eg as described in the Loka Sutta, SN12.44: "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving."

Does this suggest a literal explanation of the OP passage, ie nama-rupa here just means mind-body, the aggregrates, a "person"? No person, no contact.

"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."Peter Gabriel lyric

Well, this seems lucid enough as a definition but let us see, whether there is any justification for regarding feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention as 'name'. Suppose there is a little child, a toddler, who is still unable to speak or understand language. Someone gives him a rubber ball and the child has seen it for the first time. If the child is told that it is a rubber ball, he might not understand it. How does he get to know that object? He smells it, feels it, and tries to eat it, and finally rolls it on the floor. At last he understands that it is a plaything. Now the child has recognised the rubber ball not by the name that the world has given it, but by those factors included under 'name' in nāma-rūpa, namely feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention.

[...and a little later...]

Rūpa exists in relation to 'name' and that is to say that form is known with the help of 'name'. As we saw above, that child got a first-hand knowledge of the rubber ball with the help of contact, feeling, perception, intention and attention. Now in the definition of 'form' as cattāri ca mahābhūtāni, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṃ upādāya rūpaṃ the four great primaries are mentioned because they constitute the most primary notion of 'form'. Just as much as feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention represent the most primary notion of 'name', conventionally so called, even so the four great primaries form the basis for the primary notion of 'form', as the world understands it.

It is not an easy matter to recognize these primaries. They are evasive like ghosts. But out of their interplay we get the perception of form, rūpasaññā. In fact what is called rūpa in this context is rūpasaññā. It is with reference to the behaviour of the four great elements that the world builds up its concept of form. Its perception, recognition and designation of form is in terms of that behaviour. And that behaviour can be known with the help of those members representing name.

The earth element is recognized through the qualities of hardness and softness, the water element through the qualities of cohesiveness and dissolution, the fire element through hotness and coolness, and the wind element through motion and inflation. In this way one gets acquainted with the nature of the four great primaries. And the perception of form, rūpasaññā, that one has at the back of one's mind, is the net result of that acquaintance. So this is nāma-rūpa. This is one's world.....Paṭigha and rūpasaññā form a pair. Paṭigha is that experience of resistance which comes by the knocking against an object, and rūpasaññā, as perception of form, is the resulting recognition of that object. The perception is in terms of what is hard, soft, hot or cold. Out of such perceptions common to the blind worldlings, arises the conventional reality, the basis of which is the world.

manas wrote:Greetings all,There is this passage from the Maha-nidana Sutta, (as translated by Ven. Thanissaro):

"'From name-&-form as a requisite condition comes contact. Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes contact. If the qualities, traits, themes, & indicators by which there is a description of name-group (mental activity) were all absent, would designation-contact with regard to the form-group (the physical properties) be discerned?"etc."Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for contact, i.e., name-and-form.

If someone could help me to understand this one passage, I would much appreciate it.kind regards,manas.

Dear manas,

Buddha wrote:"Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements (earth, fire, etc,) and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form.

(Sammaditthi Sutta)

In other words: If the apparent manifestations of forms (permutations, signs, themes, and indicators - the properties of forms) were absent, would there be resistance-contact with regard to feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention?Etc.